SoM Draft experiences so far

[Paul Hodgson]

So it's Scars drafting season, and already I'm far more interested in the format than M11. The sheer number of possible interactions is staggering, and there is a lot of depth to the format just waiting to be explored.

Couple of points from last night's draft :

Never pass shatter, this shouldn't wheel in a 9 man pod.

Bouncing scrapmelter is never a good idea.

Take Myr as early as possible, they're the cornerstone of almost every deck (exception possibly being the infect deck).

Only good 1 infect deck can really be supported unless the packs are very deep, and you need as many 2 drops as possible - if you're going down that route grab proliferate highly as well.

Equipment is awesome, strider harness is great, razor pinions are surprisingly useful (not a lot of evasion in the set) etc although echo circlet is terrible, don't take that.

Haven't got a pick order figured out yet, although something like:

Bombs > Removal (shatter, slice, scrapmelter etc) > Myr/Infect > Equipment > Dudes

[Daniel Royde]

Not trying to make a general comment, but why would you attack there?!
If you're playing against someone who doesn't see that, then is it really a proper game?


Thomas David Baker said:

Have I improved? Sort of.

The only specific thing I can think of is that I got punished for attacking Silvercoat Lion into a board of Black Knight (w/Ice Cage), Child of Night (w/Ice Cage), Goblin Tunneler. Which is not the world's most subtle thing, but it's something I might have got away with elsewhere.

And of course my decks are not 7 removal spells, two Foresees and some fliers and are more "hmm, Armored Cancrix or Elixir of Immortality as my 23rd card".

[Tom Reeve]

WARNING: OPINIONS HEREIN

I mean (assuming it wasn't just a brainfart attack, god knows those happen), that kind of sums up the problem of consistently playing people worse than you - you get into terrrible habits doing things you can get away with against worse players. Everything from mulligan decisions to assuming people will miss on-board tricks, to reading them for X every time they have it. Your game ends up full of crutches that don't support you as soon as you play against someone at least as good as you. Obviously this isn't something that happens instantly, and you can avoid it by mixing up your opponents (skill-level-wise.) Even if you're just playing some other format between draft rounds with better players, you need to be in the habit of needing to play well to win a healthy proportion of the time you're playing magic to actually improve.



Daniel Royde said:

Not trying to make a general comment, but why would you attack there?!
If you're playing against someone who doesn't see that, then is it really a proper game?


Thomas David Baker said:

Have I improved? Sort of.

The only specific thing I can think of is that I got punished for attacking Silvercoat Lion into a board of Black Knight (w/Ice Cage), Child of Night (w/Ice Cage), Goblin Tunneler. Which is not the world's most subtle thing, but it's something I might have got away with elsewhere.

And of course my decks are not 7 removal spells, two Foresees and some fliers and are more "hmm, Armored Cancrix or Elixir of Immortality as my 23rd card".

[Thomas David Baker]

Well in a recent game I attacked Assault Griffin into Giant Spider not as a bluff and with no trick in hand. In this particular case I just hadn't thought about the interaction. Black Knight had been Ice Caged a long time, Tunneler had only just got here. So I guess this is an example of an 8-4 being good for my game ... Ice Cage gets worse when your opponents think about what it does and when/how best to break it instead of treating it like Pacifism or removing it they second they are capable of doing so.

Maybe I'll play 4-3-2-2's as a middle ground. I seem to mostly at least win the first round of those but beyond that it gets harder.

[TimsWheelbarrow]

4-3-2-2s are fine to get better in. In my experience the 8-4s are better for running niche strategies and experimenting in, while the 4-3-2-2s are better for just doing the consensus 'good plan', as people's pick orders are typically more homogenous in 8-4s. 8-4s are often better to rare draft in as well. Normally the way that I choose which draft to enter will come down to how well I feel like I know the format, and if I have anything clever I want to do. I suppose that if I'm less confident in a format I might 4-3-2-2 more, but that is far from the rule.

Swiss drafts are actually quite good for self esteem and learning the format, as in general I don't feel like I learn a whole lot from losing in round one when I'm still getting my legs with a new set.

As far as the quality of play at the club on different nights is concerned, maybe I'm lucky (unlucky?), but by and large I think that I have dodged the bad players much of the time. The biggest frustration for me tends to be slow players more than anything else, but that has always been the case at The Games Club. It's not like we have Danny Victor slowing up drafts every night any more, which is something. In general, I feel like if you aren't having a good time drafting at the games club, you need to do some combination of winning more and drinking more. If you are already doing plenty of each, then what are you complaining about?

If you really want to get better at draft, the best format is team rochester. Even now (where as a format it has been dead since Lovett was on top of the world), Team Roch is the quickest way to learn what is good, as it means that you see a tonne of picks very quickly, and get to talk about all of them with all the players involved afterwards. You can even do it one on one (easily the best one on one draft format).

TW

[Daniel Royde]

THANK YOU!!!
At last, someone else being a proponent of team rochester.
Isn't it obviously a good way to get to know a new format? As well as being super fun?
If only they hadn't killed it. Instead we have....?



TimsWheelbarrow said:

4-3-2-2s are fine to get better in. In my experience the 8-4s are better for running niche strategies and experimenting in, while the 4-3-2-2s are better for just doing the consensus 'good plan', as people's pick orders are typically more homogenous in 8-4s. 8-4s are often better to rare draft in as well. Normally the way that I choose which draft to enter will come down to how well I feel like I know the format, and if I have anything clever I want to do. I suppose that if I'm less confident in a format I might 4-3-2-2 more, but that is far from the rule.

Swiss drafts are actually quite good for self esteem and learning the format, as in general I don't feel like I learn a whole lot from losing in round one when I'm still getting my legs with a new set.

As far as the quality of play at the club on different nights is concerned, maybe I'm lucky (unlucky?), but by and large I think that I have dodged the bad players much of the time. The biggest frustration for me tends to be slow players more than anything else, but that has always been the case at The Games Club. It's not like we have Danny Victor slowing up drafts every night any more, which is something. In general, I feel like if you aren't having a good time drafting at the games club, you need to do some combination of winning more and drinking more. If you are already doing plenty of each, then what are you complaining about?

If you really want to get better at draft, the best format is team rochester. Even now (where as a format it has been dead since Lovett was on top of the world), Team Roch is the quickest way to learn what is good, as it means that you see a tonne of picks very quickly, and get to talk about all of them with all the players involved afterwards. You can even do it one on one (easily the best one on one draft format).

TW

[Tom Reeve]

You'll take your 2HG Sealed and you'll like it!

*shakes fist*

Daniel Royde said:

THANK YOU!!!
At last, someone else being a proponent of team rochester.
Isn't it obviously a good way to get to know a new format? As well as being super fun?
If only they hadn't killed it. Instead we have....?

[Daniel Royde]

I'd rather have 2HG than no sanctioned team events at all.

Anyway, 2HG was a highly skill intensive forma... blah blah blah ;)




Tom Reeve said:

You'll take your 2HG Sealed and you'll like it!

*shakes fist*

Daniel Royde said:

THANK YOU!!!
At last, someone else being a proponent of team rochester.
Isn't it obviously a good way to get to know a new format? As well as being super fun?
If only they hadn't killed it. Instead we have....?

[Thomas David Baker]

2HG is so, so bad.

And I say that as a man who recently won the final of a 2HG tournament beating Turn 1 Serra Ascendant in the final. Against a team with one head playing Mono W with TWO Serra Ascendants. From 8 boosters total.

[James Mills]

Opinions aside - you are wrong


Thomas David Baker said:

2HG is so, so bad.

And I say that as a man who recently won the final of a 2HG tournament beating Turn 1 Serra Ascendant in the final. Against a team with one head playing Mono W with TWO Serra Ascendants. From 8 boosters total.